Crow v. Penry’s Empirical Analysis
102 F.3d 1086 · 1996
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 6 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently May 2017 · most notably Kay v. Bemis (2007), Butterfield v. Bail (1997)
13 federal appellate · 6 district ·
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Heck v. Humphrey · Ellis v. United States · Stephenson v. Reno · Jackson v. Vannoy
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]n order to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid, a § 1983 plaintiff must prove that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Mecham v. Taylor · Mueller v. Wark“asserted a § 1983 Bivens claim and a pendant state claim for common law abuse of process.” 102 F.3d at 1087 . It is not clear what the Tenth Circuit meant by”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.